Search results
Jul 31, 2021 · The Sussex Peerage Case: 1844. Statements against penal interest are outside the common law exception of statements against interest. The oral confession of a deceased person was considered. The court considered principles of statutory interpretation: ‘Acts should be construed according to the intent of Parliament.
May 15, 2024 · The Sussex Peerage Case (1844) underscores the crucial role of legislative intent in interpreting statutes. It highlights how the Royal Marriage Act's prohibitions on marriages without sovereign consent impact royal lineage and legal definitions of valid marriages.
Courts took an increasingly strict view of the words of a statute: if the case before them was not precisely covered they were not prepared to countenance any alteration of the statutory language. One of the leading statements of the literal rule was made by Tindal CJ in the Sussex Peerage Case (1844) 11 Cl&Fin 85:
Soon after the death of his Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex, in the year 1843, a petition was presented to Her Majesty by Augustus Frederick D'Este, claiming the honours, dignities, and privileges of Duke of Sussex, Earl of Inverness, and Baron of Arklow.
We would like to show you a description here but the site won’t allow us.
THE SUSSEX PEERAGE CLAIM. DECISION OF THE COMMITTEE FOR PRIVILEGES ON JULY 9, 1844, AS TO THE CLAIM TO THE DUKEDOM OF SUSSEX AND THE EFFECT OF THE ROYAL MARRIAGE ACT ( 12 GEO. 3. c. 11 .). (Reported in 11 Cl. & F. 85 and 8 Jur. 793.)
Soon after the death of his Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex, in the year 1843, a petition was presented to Her Majesty by Augustus Frederick D'Este, claiming the honours, dignities, and privileges of Duke of Sussex, Earl of Inverness, and Baron of Arklow.
